HC Deb 21 January 1974 vol 867 cc1190-2
18. Mr. Walter Johnson

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress is being made with the developments of the RB211-524 Rolls-Royce engine ; and what arrangements have been made for sharing the launching costs.

23. Mr. Tebbit

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requests he has had for further Government support in the development of the RB211 family of engines ; and what replies he has given.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Cranley Onslow)

My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace informed the House on 13th December of the Government's position in relation to the development of the RB211 engine to 48,000 lb. thrust. We are in continuing touch with the manufacturers and as soon as further decisions are taken my hon. Friend will of course report them to the House.—[Vol. 866, c. 170–1.]

Mr. Johnson

Will the Minister give an assurance that the development and launching of the up-rated version of the RB211 will not be held back through lack of funds? Will he join me in condemning those sections of the Press which have been scaremongering about the prospects of TriStar and the RB211?

Mr. Onslow

I shall certainly join with the hon. Member in condemning scaremongering speculation. I can assure him that we are in the closest contact with the company and that we wish to see this project succeed.

Mr. Tebbit

Have any approaches been made concerning development up to the -25 standard, the 55,000-1b. engine, and the -80 standard, the 30,000-1b. thrust engine? Are these likely goers in the near future?

Mr. Onslow

No such proposals have been put to us by the company, which is concentrating on the 48,000-1b. version which is adequate for its purposes.

Mr. Millan

What recent discussions have the Government had with Lockheed, for example during Mr. Haughton's recent visit to London, and what reassurance can the Government give Rolls-Royce and the workers that the project has a long-term future?

Mr. Onslow

As the hon. Member may know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace had a meeting on 18th January with Mr. Haughton, who advised him of the latest situation. There is, of course, a close connection between this version of the RB211 and the stretched version of the Lockheed 1011. We understand that Lockheed has decided to defer launching of the -2 for the time being but it has informed us of no decision to abandon the project and it has indicated that it is considering alternative plans to provide a long-range version of the 1011.

Mr. Wilkinson

Does my hon. Friend foresee any other aircraft in which an up-rated version of the RB211 could be installed? Will he look into the possibility not only of installing the engine into the European airbus but also of selling the engine to the Russians and the Chinese?

Mr. Onslow

These are essentially matters for the manufacturers, who no doubt are alive to the possibilities not only of the European airbus but also of the Boeing 747.

Mr. Bishop

Since the Minister says that his hon. Friend has seen Dan Haughton about the situation, will he be more forthcoming concerning the discussions which took place and the prospects? Is the Minister aware that it is estimated by Dan Haughton that about 56 TriStars are equivalent in use to 100 Boeing 707s at two-thirds of the fuel consumption? On these prospects of significant energy savings, which will of course enhance prospects for the TriStar family, will the Minister assure the House that talks are taking place to ensure the financial viability of Lockheed, since it is no good having a family of RB211 engines without a family of aircraft in which to put them?

Mr. Onslow

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into great detail about conversations between my hon. Friend and Mr. Haughton, but I have told the House that if decisions are taken my hon. Friend will make a statement. There is no greater believer in the aircraft than Mr. Haughton, and he is a most powerful advocate for it. The question of the financial stability of the Lockheed company is not one for me to comment on.